Gents, for F86 in the above posts, can we substitute CA-27? That, after all, is the correct designation for these aircraft.

The Sabres operated at Butterworth by the RAAF were licensed built versions with a better engine, the RR Avon, and 2 x 30mm cannon in place of the standard F86’s 6 x .50 cal MGs. I believe that this aircraft was thought by most people to be the best of the Sabre line.

If you can get hold of a copy, in the November 2001 issue of ‘FlyPast’, Don Chadwick recounts his experiences of, I think, the same Vulcan detachment to Butterworth in late 1964 that Pontius Nav refers too above.

There was a CA-27 Sabre, albeit in RMAF markings, in the static park at the Langkawi Air Show, LIMA 07, here last week. This aircraft was formerly A94-362 when with the RAAF. Photos below.

Laurie, it will be in the Journal of the Royal Institute of Navigation although I can email a copy soon.

As for the radius of action, I would not be as generous as the Encylopedia of WMA. There are many open sources that are complete nonsense. For instance the operational data for the Vulcan used by HQ FEAF planning staffs was more akin to the Observer’s Book of Aircraft.

An assumption had been made that a Mark 2 had to be better than a Mark 1 which completely overlooked the fact that the Mark 2 was designed to LIFT 2 Skybolt missiles. It was not designed to fly higher, faster or further than a Mark 1. The only thing it did do better than a Mark 1 was climb!

The ROA quoted was pretty near identical to the Vulcan.

PN, many thanks. I would appreciate a copy of the article. I’ll PM you my email address if that is okay.

Thanks also for the additional gen on operational data. Must admit, I have pretty much accepted these as fact. Will treat them with a little more scepticism now.

Lauriebe,
I poached this photo so thats as good as will get,sorry!Still do not see any photos on the original message or a link!You are probaly right about sembawang ,I only ever stopped one night in Changi back in 1963 before emplaning on a hastings for RAAF Butterworth.

Ok, thanks. I have seen a photo very similar to this not so long ago. Trying to remember where.

Could your firewall or cookie blocker be stopping you from seeing the photos in the first post? I still have no problem viewing them every time I open this thread.

Jon, interesting. Thanks for that. I’ll try and get hold of a copy of that mag. Wonder where they got that info from.

There were certainly incursions over Malaysian airspace during the early months of the Confrontation period. They pretty well ceased after the RAF/RAAF fighter force was reinforced and placed on 24 hour QRA.

I read a snippet today that said there was a “claim” that a TU-16 reached as far as central Australia at some stage during the Malayan “emergency”? I know it seems to be generally accepted that the RAF shot down at least one C-130 at the time and that was hushed up. Not even sure a TU-16 has that range, but does anybody know any more about this?

Jon, are you referring to the Malayan Emergency from 1948 – 1960 or to the “Confrontation” 1963 -66?

I have a particular interest in both periods and this info on the TU 16 is new to me. Can you say where it came from?

…. anyone know what lizard that is?

James

It’s a Water Monitor. Very common in this part of the world.

Definetly a yellow SAR Whirlwind in a tropical setting. Have found this photo of a Whirlwind on Christmas Island:

http://www.christmas-island.org/tn0266.html

VV625 was produced as an FB5. Was it converted to FB9 standard?

The only FB5 that I can find that was converted was VV675. This aircraft seems to have been used for trials on the new air conditioning fitted FB9s. As far as I can see this was the only conversion. I would be interested in learning if other FB5s were converted.